May 24, 2013

1. We talked about this case 2 days ago here. There were accusations of selective prosecution under the Florida statutory rape law, which require you to believe that an 18-year-old guy having sex with a 14-year-old girl would not be prosecuted.

2. The parents of the younger girl are upset about getting called homophobic (in the social media), and they defend themselves here. The video is worth watching.

Based on the video, it seems that kids at school are putting a lot of pressure on their daughter to reject her parents.

Now, the parents did report her girlfriend in to the police. They did this, they say, as a last resort after their daughter had already run away (without telling them). That was not a good strategy for getting their daughter back, as it's alienated her further, so that she may feel that her entire social life depends on rejecting her parents.

I don't know, The circumstances are hard to put yourself in. You have a 14-year-old daughter, who must seem like a little girl to you, and who very recently surely was a very innocent little girl, getting implements shoved in her by an adult. I wouldn't second-guess.

Althouse: "Now, the parents did report her girlfriend in to the police."

Mandatory reporting laws in Fla may have required it.

Of course, I expect the perp's advocates believe lesbians and gays are, or should be, exempt from laws relating to child molestation and child sexual abuse. After all, isn't that the next step in the gay wars.

The younger girl's parents made one drastic decision: to report behavior that is, under the law, a felony.

The accused girl got control of the narrative, with much support, making it about homophobia.

There's really no way back for the younger girl's parents. They can present their point of view and make it somewhat better, but they must regret going to the police.

It isn't even that. It appears that the parents went to the police when she turned 18, yet not before. Unless I missed something, that appears to be a high motivation. However, the discretion of the police notwithstanding would have been to say, "We aren't seeing an issue here, move along." But nope, once they become involved, for some reason the hammer has to drop. No discernment, no discretion, no thought. It's foolishness followed by the stern application of the letter of the law rather then spirit of it. No one wins here and for what? Now this girl has to face turning down the plea deal to see if she can rally support by a jury of her peers. Who is that going to be, twelve lesbian 18 year olds or some mixture of 20 and 30 somethings who may be swayed.

All the cops had to do was say to her, "Stay away or we will arrest you. One warning." did that happen? I didn't see it, so I might be wrong there.

Shockingly it turns out all the excuses the left made to cover a statutory rape were wrong. The woman was 18 the entire time, the girl was 14. And the parents of the younger did warn the older to stay away before going to police.

We do clearly see the party of hate in action again though. What lovely people.

It's a bad plea deal designed to destroy her life. Home arrest doesn't allow education, employment, or any other aspect of life. The prosecutor wants much more that the 2 years Unsupervised probation he's likely to get in court. Of course, he can fuck up this young girls life. But if he didn't like doing that, he wouldn't BE a prosecutor.

House arrest most certainly allows for education and employment---both of those can be done via the internet, and school can even be done by mail ifshe's not allowed internet access. Besides, don't they use those electronic monitoring bracelets to let people under house arrest go to approved places?

Whatever. I'm out of sympathy. Parents gave her plenty of warning, it seems, and in return she put them through the hell of waking up to find their 14 year olds bed empty, not knowing where she was. Awful, and that's not even the half of it. She's an adult messing around with a child, someone who isn't even old enough for a learners permit or a job.

On Monday, she's 17 and everything that has been going on is fine. The next day she's 18 and the SAME conduct continues. As it has for centuries.

Note: girl #2's parents don't go to the police when it's 2 juveniles. No, they wait until they can really screw up girl #1's life. Then they strike.

When adulthood was 21, the same stuff happened but the consequences were less serious. Did Society really want to cover everything? Or are the unintended consequences as Draconian as Victorian England? Is this what we really want?

As Act Up used to say in the 1980's, can you really overrule nature? No. And teying just leads to destroyed lives.

""This is a situation of of two teenagers who happen to be of the same sex involved in a relationship. If this case involved a boy and a girl we don't believe it would get the media attention to this case," Graves said.""

Nor would Graves be anyway near as willing to take the case. This is how careers are made.The girls are just convenient props for lawyers and media types.

in the words of a Sheriff’s Department detective, the two teens “put their fingers inside of each other’s vaginas, put their mouths on each other’s vaginas, and both of them used a vibrator on each other to insert it in each other’s vaginas.”

Neither of these girls are real dykes. They are just girls who are turned off by most guys and have not found suitable mates. Real dykes are crude, nasty, and worst than any men you have ever been around. They have no shame.

When I argue in favor of gay marriage, I say, Treat these people just as you would a straight couple in a similar situation. They really feel about each other the way you feel about your own spouse. Same thing here: If an 18 year old man debauched your 14 year old (girl) child, and wouldn't desist, what would you do? Maybe, as Ann suggests, you think, It's better to let him keep screwing her, rather than screw up the parent-child relationship. But to me, calling the cops is a reasonable course of action.

First, as I said at the beginning of this thread, the 18 year old has been advised against her best interest.

She was in essence offered the equivalent of what Michigan has in the "Holmes Youthful Trainee Act" [MCL Section 762.11] that provides a "second chance, following a probationary period. It applies to youths ages 17 through 20 at the time of the crime.

Nothing to be gained at trial, even if acquitted, will leave less of a record for future impediment. Her lawyer and her family are serving their personal agendas, not the young woman's welfare.

Second...just in my opinion, but any time an 18 year old is seeking intimate social & sexual contact with a 14 year old it is because said 18 year old cannot establish normal relations with their own age peers, plus or minus a year. They find a target and take advantage. Period.

I was reserving judgement on this case until more information came out. The affidavit linked to by John throws gives enough information more me to conclude that Kaitlyn Hunt is not only guilty of statutory rape, but has psychological problems.

Note that the first sexual encounter happened in a bathroom at the school. Another interesting thing is that a phone call was set up and the 14 year old asked Kaitlyn if the sex meant anything. To me, this is very telling and indicates that the relationship was more of an adult taking advantage of a confused, rebellious, underage teenager.

Kaitlyn isn't the innocent person she proclaims herself to be. She's a self-entitled "princess" who gets her way. I'll wager that she's going to end up looking like yet another crazy woman in court and wouldn't be surprised that this behavior isn't an isolated incident (which is why the current victim asked if it was love.)

As for the parents; they have a rebellious 14-year-old who is being encouraged to be even more rebellious by an 18-year-old. They ASKED Kaitlyn to stop and when Kaitlyn refused, they resorted to the police. The attack on them is an attack on the rights of parents.

Some in the lesbian community are now acting like NAMBLA and are doing a great disservice to their cause.

That deal would have spared a trial and given her two years house arrest, and one year probation. There would be no sex offender label. But she would have had a felony conviction on her record.

If Hunt loses at trial, she faces up to 15-years behind bars.

The prosecutor offered such a sweet deal because this isn't rape rape.

The victim doesn't think she's a victim at all, and presumably will so testify at trial.

But statutory rape is still statutory rape. Hello, it's still a crime!

Defense attorney Julia Graves advised her client to go to trial, rather than accepting a plea deal by the state. A decision she says is the best one.

That is serious malpractice. You are counting on the jury nullifying the law? Are you insane? Your client did exactly what she is charged with doing!

Cynical thought: the attorney doesn't mind a conviction of her client, because that will make her a martyr for the cause.

And while an 18-year-old is a legal adult, you are still very young and might not appreciate how people in a position of authority can be screwing with you. Which is ironic since you screwed with a child.

This girl is highly likely to be convicted for statutory rape, and sentenced to prison. And the attorney will be "outraged."

I wonder if it is the perp's father who is pushing this against the advice of the attorney. Or maybe the attorney has an agenda and is trying to set the kid up as some mistreated patron saint of sexual abusers.

"Homophobia" was a term invented to improve the self-esteem of men and women who choose to engage in homosexual behavior. It followed from the self-esteem movement, which attempted to normalize dysfunctional behaviors.

"Homophobia" is a subset of a larger class of dislikes or fears of efforts to normalize dysfunctional behaviors. This class includes normalization or promotion of promiscuity or irresponsible behaviors, from which, among other things, arose a need and desire to normalize abortion.

Are you actually arguing that homophobia is entirely fictitious? Are you also denying the homosexual bigotry doesn't exist? The unfortunate reality is that if Ann posts someone about homosexuals, the bigots come out of the woodwork. Oh, they couch their hatred in "nice" terms, but it's still bigotry, pure and simple.

A phobia is a dislike or fear of something. There is no fear of homosexual behavior, other than efforts to normalize a dysfunctional behavior. There is no dislike of the behavior, other than efforts to normalize a dysfunctional behavior. There is no "homophobia".

Consenting adults can engage in a homosexual relationship, and other dysfunctional but tolerable behaviors. The "phobia" arises with an effort to normalize a dysfunctional behavior. A behavior which violates a society's and humanity's fitness.

Bigotry is sanctimonious hypocrisy. There is no bigotry when people reject the normalization of dysfunctional behaviors. There is no bigotry when they identify the dysfunctional nature of a behavior.

Actually, the bigots are homosexual activists, and their heterosexual patrons, who selectively violate civil and human rights, as well as evolutionary principles.

Why don't they support normalization of all dysfunctional behaviors equally?

With their rejection of evolutionary principles, there can be no legitimate reason to restrict special treatment to couples or couplets. Why don't they propose that all unions be corporate?

Why do they practice selective discrimination without cause or reason? That is the definition of bigotry.

I suggest that certain classes of dysfunctional behaviors can be tolerated. That couplets may enjoy certain legal benefits and protections, but their behavior does not merit a special status because it has no redeeming value to either society or humanity. Dysfunctional behaviors, including homosexual behavior, cannot be normalized without violating the terms and circumstances of reality.

You should avoid reliance on emotional appeals as your principal argument. While they evoke a visceral response, which is usually but not universally sympathetic, they are also more likely to cause early saturation. This will not favor your position as it favors a rote response to your argument, which will likely be a progressive rejection of the emotional appeal.